And all will go fine - until the next trump type and then Boof and crowd vote - unconstitutional, unconstitutional, kiss my ass

The one silver lining is that they only take around 100 out of the thousands of cases ruled on by lower courts each year. So far, the cases rejected that I've heard of have been pretty good for our team.

Anyhow, I don't expect this bill to get past the Senate in the near term. Maaaaybe closer to 2020, and maybe the House will subpoena Dolt .45's records alone.

And all will go fine - until the next trump type and then Boof and crowd vote - unconstitutional, unconstitutional, kiss my ass

The one silver lining is that they only take around 100 out of the thousands of cases ruled on by lower courts each year. So far, the cases rejected that I've heard of have been pretty good for our team.

Anyhow, I don't expect this bill to get past the Senate in the near term. Maaaaybe closer to 2020, and maybe the House will subpoena Dolt .45's records alone.

trump is holding the Boof card

George Carlin said “The owners know the truth. It’s called the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.”

I always knew this; I can remember my parents and my friends parents bitching about taxes when I was a kid. I remember seeing people on tv joking about high taxes...Johnny Carson comes to mind. The fact remains that during the highest productivity rate of the US economy ever, from about 1945 to about 1970, tax rates were set up in a way that super rich folks paid a lot of tax; no problem. But for the past fifty years the GOP has incrementally choked the government of revenue. I really can't believe there's not much more attention directed to this.....the wingnuts successfully lie and get morons to vote against their own interests....in another 20 years, they will wonder what happened. I hate it for my daughter and granddaughter.

I might have been unclear. I always knew that the rates were much higher, and that we prospered when they were. The part that I forgot/never knew is that different portions of a high income are taxed at different rates. So, when a Dem says "70% rate", s/he really means a 70% rate for the top portion of a fat cat's income, not for all of their income. Of course, the apparent bite is further moderated by investment income being taxed at a much lower rate than other income like pay.

I might have been unclear. I always knew that the rates were much higher, and that we prospered when they were. The part that I forgot/never knew is that different portions of a high income are taxed at different rates. So, when a Dem says "70% rate", s/he really means a 70% rate for the top portion of a fat cat's income, not for all of their income. Of course, the apparent bite is further moderated by investment income being taxed at a much lower rate than other income like pay.

No. I knew what you meant; I can remember that at one time, income over a certain amount was taxed at something like 90%. Hell, these days, those 90 per centers get credits to buy their yachts and jets and are able to manipulate the system to actually pay no tax and even get refunds for supposed losses. Hell, I'd like to get a tax credit for everything I've lost.

Walker failed on both counts Tuesday when he tweeted a smarmy attempt to criticize the congresswoman’s proposal for a 70 percent marginal tax rate on annual earnings above $10 million to fund a Green New Deal and fight climate change.

Under her plan, the majority of Americans, who don’t earn that much, would pay a much lower share of their income, and the average tax rate for working Americans could go down.

But not the way Walker explained it.

Explaining tax rates before Reagan to 5th graders: “Imagine if you did chores for your grandma and she gave you $10. When you got home, your parents took $7 from you.” The students said: “That’s not fair!” Even 5th graders get it.
— Scott Walker (@ScottWalker) January 15, 2019

Luckily, Ocasio-Cortez sprang into action, schooling the recently ousted governor that his analogy was completely wrong and proving that her Twitter game remains supreme.

Explaining marginal taxes to a far-right former Governor:

Imagine if you did chores for abuela & she gave you $10. When you got home, you got to keep it, because it’s only $10.

Then we taxed the billionaire in town because he’s making tons of money underpaying the townspeople.
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) January 15, 2019

Twitter users were happy to pile on the governor, who, as one of his last duties in office, signed legislation that stripped power from his Democratic successor and gave it to the Republican-controlled state legislature.

Did you tell them about how you lost the election but tried to strip the incoming governor of his power or did you leave that out?

I don’t know which is worse — that Walker doesn’t understand marginal tax rates OR he is outright lying to 5th graders. So depressing.

Pitching “Are You Less Honest Than a Fifth-Grader”.

poor Scott Walker. All he wanted to do was lie to children and brag about it without consequences.

... and after taking that $7 from their 10 million and 10 dollar earnings, that $7 was used to feed the poor and give healthcare to the elderly and disabled and fund national defense. How could we ask that poor millionaire child to do such a thing.

One person did a different kind of thought experiment that alluded to allegations that before he became president, Donald Trump set up a fake corporation to disguise millions of dollars in gifts from his parents to avoid taxes.

Imagine if you did chores for your dad and he paid you millions of dollars through a series of shell corporations in an illegal scheme to avoid taxes....

The For The People Act of 2019 (H.R. 1, 2019) is a bill introduced in the United States House of Representatives to expand voting rights, limit partisan gerrymandering, strengthen ethics rules, and limit the influence of private donor money in politics. It was introduced by John Sarbanes (D-MD) on January 3, 2019 on behalf of the newly elected Democratic majority as the first official legislation of the 116th United States Congress.

The bill's provisions fall into three major categories:

Campaign finance reform. The bill would introduce voluntary public financing for campaigns, matching small donations at a 6:1 ratio. It would also introduce stricter limitations on foreign lobbying, require Super PACs and other "dark money" organizations to disclose their donors, and restructure the Federal Election Commission to reduce partisan gridlock. The bill also expresses support for a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision, where the Supreme Court held that spending money can be critical to exercising the freedom of speech, and so virtually unlimited political spending by nonprofit corporations, for-profit corporations, labor unions, and other associations was a constitutional right.

Government ethics. The bill would require presidential and vice-presidential candidates to disclose their previous 10 years of income-tax returns, eliminate the use of taxpayer money by politicians to settle sexual-harassment claims, and create a new ethics code for the U.S. Supreme Court, which is not subject to existing judicial codes of conduct.

Voting rights. The bill would create a national voter-registration program, make Election Day a federal holiday, replace partisan gerrymandering with non-partisan commissions to draw electoral districts, and limit voter caging....

... The ideas behind the bill are extremely popular. A vast majority of Americans want to get the influence of money out of politics, and want Congress to pass laws to do so. Recent polling from the PAC End Citizens United found that 82 percent of all voters and 84 percent of independents said they support a bill of reforms to tackle corruption....

Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-Mass.) proposal for a “wealth tax” on Americans worth more than $50 million currently has significant support across party lines, new polling suggests.

The exact level of support varies from survey to survey. But in three recently released online polls, support for Warren’s plan ranges between 50 and 61 percent, with opposition languishing between 20 and 23 percent....

Another Democratic tax proposal ― Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s plan for a 70 percent tax rate on income over $10 million ― got less support but also polled above water in the Politico/Morning Consult survey (45 percent favoring, 32 percent opposing) and the Economist/YouGov survey (44 percent in favor, 33 percent opposed), with a third survey finding majority support.

... That is why we are standing with our friends at Social Security Works to support the Social Security 2100 Act, which would:

Increase Social Security benefits for all of us.
Force millionaires and billionaires to pay the same rate as everyone else.
Protect low income workers by increasing the minimum monthly benefit.
Guard against inflation by indexing benefits to what the elderly really must spend money on.